Allowed

Amit Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2023BAIL/6345/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second bail application filed by Amit Sharma under Section 439 Cr.P.C. He was charged with murder and kidnapping. The court noted the prolonged incarceration and lack of evidence against him, granting bail subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Amit Sharma be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions.

Amit Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193733

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6345 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This is second bail application. The Crl. Misc. First Bail Application No. 36886 of 2015 has been rejected on 13.05.2019.

¶8

This is third bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Amit Sharma, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 199 of 2015, under sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC, P.S..Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against hm and there is no direct evidence against the applicant. It has wrongly been mentioned that the date of occurrence is 01.01.2015 whereas the date of occurrence is 01.02.2015. Till date only two prosecution witnesses No. 1 no 2 have been examined. whereas there are five prosecution witnesses. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that trial is progressing at a slow pace and has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Indrani Pratim Mukerjea Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1627 of 2022 to submit that prolonged incarceration of a person as an under trial is against his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that there is no occasion now for the applicant to tamper with any witness or to flee from judicial process. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been

¶10

mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.06.2014 having no criminal history.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted the facts that the applicant is in jail since last eight and half years.

¶12

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Amit Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶18

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶19

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

The bail application is allowed .

¶22

Order Date :- 9.10.2023 RPD

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Singh Vs State of U.P.

Inam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahul Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Sheetala Prasad Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Manoj @ Kala Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others